On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 07:32:55PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> If it helps, I could try to split it into two patches, one with code
> rearrangements that don't change current behaviour, and then the actual
> 2PC stuff on top of that.
I think that'd be a good idea, because such a patch co
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up.
I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's
the idea behind those? Do you release the loc
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up.
I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's
the idea behind those? Do you release the locks and then reacquire
them, or do you re
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
Heikki,
What is still missing to complete the 2PC patch?.
Here's my TODO on things that need to be done:
* large objects
* guc variables
* notify/listen
Large objects and notify/listen should be quite straightforward. GUC
variables need s
Heikki,
What is still missing to complete the 2PC patch?.
Regards,
Hans
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
definitely ... just de
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
My recollection is that it's quite far from being complete. I had hoped
to s
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
> > definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
>
> My recollection is that it's quite far f
On Thursday 20 January 2005 04:16, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
> > definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
> >
> > I *believe* that 8.1, we're looking at a 2mo cycle before beta, so
> > figure b
If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
I *believe* that 8.1, we're looking at a 2mo cycle before beta, so
figure beta for ~April 1st (no april fools jokes, eh?) ...
You guys are crazy :) We haven'
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
> definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
My recollection is that it's quite far from being complete. I had hoped
to spend some time during the 8.1 c
If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
I *believe* that 8.1, we're looking at a 2mo cycle before beta, so figure
beta for ~April 1st (no april fools jokes, eh?) ...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Heikki Lin
Hi,
Now that we got 8.0 out of the door, I'm submitting my two-phase commit patch
again for discussion.
http://www.hut.fi/~hlinnaka/pgsql/
Do we want it in 8.1, if we want a short development cycle? It needs a new
pg_twophase subdirectory, and it introduces a new system view, so I guess it
requ
12 matches
Mail list logo
